The Distribution of Grants and Scholarships by Race

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Distribution of Grants and Scholarships by Race"

Transcription

1 Aid Policy Analysis The Distribution s and s by Mark Kantrowitz Publisher Fastweb.com and FinAid.org September 2, 2011 This paper presents data concerning the distribution grants and scholarships by race. It debunks the race myth, which claims that minority students receive more than their fair share scholarships. The reality is that minority students are less likely to win private scholarships or receive merit-based institutional grants than Caucasian 1 students. Among undergraduate students enrolled full-time/full-year in Bachelor s degree programs at four-year colleges and universities, minority students represent about a third applicants but slightly more than a quarter private scholarship recipients. Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) the student population. Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. SCHOLARSHIPS RESTRICTED TO CAUCASIAN STUDENTS Every few years someone creates a Whites Only scholarship and justifies it by claiming that there aren t any scholarships for Caucasian students. For example, Colby Bohannan, one the founders the Former Majority Association for Equality (FMAE), was quoted in an article on the web site a Texas television station 2 as saying It just got really frustrating when every other scholarship you happen to find online you need not apply to based on your ethnicity or gender. Similar scholarships are also created to protest affirmative action policies and race-based scholarships. While there are very few private scholarships that are explicitly targeted at Caucasian students as a category, 3 Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share private scholarships and meritbased grants. Caucasian students receive more than three times as much in merit-based grant and private scholarship funding as minority students. These Whites Only scholarships are usually created by students who are frustrated at their own inability to find and win scholarships. Nationwide, only about 1 in 20 (5.5%) undergraduate students and about 1 in 8 (12.1%) full-time Bachelor s degree students at 4-year colleges and universities pay for college with private scholarships. The average amount per recipient used per year is only about $2,500 to $3,000. While the odds winning a private scholarship are somewhat higher for Caucasian students, most families tend to overestimate their eligibility for merit-based scholarships. For example, graduating with high class rank does not guarantee that the student will win a scholarship, since there are more than 85,000 high school valedictorians and salutatorians nationwide each year. 4 scholarships are 1 The terms White and Caucasian are used interchangeably and synonymously in this paper, as are the terms Black and African-American and the terms Latino and Hispanic. 2 Jason Whitely, African-American hands out a 'whites-only' scholarship, WFAA-TV (Dallas/Fort Worth), June 30, There are, however, many scholarship programs restricted to particular Caucasian ethnicities, such as scholarships for students German, Greek, Italian, Irish, Norwegian, Polish, Scottish, Swedish or Welsh heritage. 4 This estimate is derived from the number public and private secondary schools in the US by assuming one valedictorian and one salutatorian per school

2 competitive enough that the majority students will not win a scholarship. When they don t win a scholarship, some students express their disappointment by blaming racial or gender preferences and restrictions, implying that minority students would not otherwise qualify for a scholarship. Most such Caucasian-restricted scholarship programs do not survive for more than a few years, typically ending soon after the founders graduate. Examples these race-restricted private scholarships include: Former Majority Association for Equality (FMAE), founded by a student (and veteran) from Texas State University (San Marcos, Texas) in Restricted to male college students who are at least ¼ Caucasian with a 3.0 or higher GPA. United Caucasian College Fund (UNCCF), founded by a veteran in Restricted to Caucasian students. The BUCR Caucasian Achievement and Recognition (CARS), founded by the College Republicans at Boston University (Boston, Massachusetts) in Restricted to fulltime BU undergraduate students who are at least ¼ Caucasian with a 3.2 or higher GPA. Defunct. Joe Fund in 2006, founded by the mother a college student. 8 Restricted to Caucasian male undergraduate students. Defunct. Kerr-Otis Partnership for Socio-Economic s (KOPSES) by students at the University Missouri (Columbia, Missouri), in Later renamed American-Coalition for Socio- Economic s (ACSES). Restricted to undergraduate students who are at least 1/8 European-American descent. Defunct. RWUCR White Award, founded by the Roger Williams University chapter the College Republicans (Bristol, Rhode Island) in Defunct. United White Persons College Fund, founded by a student at Texas Tech University (Lubbock, Texas) in Defunct. State initiatives banning the use racial preferences in college admissions and financial aid at public colleges, such as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Proposal 2), the Washington Civil Rights Act (Initiative 200) and California s Proposition 209 also claim that they are motivated in part by concern over the inequitable distribution funds. They argue that granting racial preferences unfairly discriminates against non-minorities. They say that they believe that scholarships and financial aid should be awarded solely on the basis need and ability, not race. There are also several college-specific endowed scholarships that are restricted to Caucasian students. These scholarships and their restrictions were established by testamentary bequests to the colleges or associated college foundations The web site at has not been updated since The web site at averagejoescholarshipfund.org has been defunct since A press release announcing the scholarship can be found at

3 Bequest from Marguerite Hornbeck to the University California s Board Regents for scholarships for very poor, American, Caucasian scholars in Mr. and Mrs. Skip Bean at the University Southern Mississippi. Restricted to dependents a single parent with financial need. Preference is to be given to a Caucasian, out-state student with a minimum 2.5 GPA. Stefan Allan Zweig Memorial at State University New York, Binghamton. Restricted to male Caucasian students in urban planning and development or a related field. Francis C. Arthur at the University South Carolina. Restricted to unmarried Caucasian freshmen who are residents South Carolina. Werner Scott at the University California, Los Angeles in Restricted to Caucasian students from Hawaii who are not Polynesian blood. Others scholarships for Caucasian students were created for integration and race-relations purposes. Oregon League Minority Voters in 2010, for Caucasian students studying race relations. 10 Diversity programs at Alcorn State University, Jackson State University and Mississippi Valley State University, funded by the Mississippi state legislature in 1997, ordered by US District Judge Neal Biggers Jr. to award at least 65% the scholarships from the trust fund to white students, not just nonblack students. 11 These scholarships were designed to attract Caucasian students to the three historically-black institutions. Diversity programs at Alabama State University and Alabama A&M University, created by federal court order in These scholarships were designed to attract Caucasian students to the two historically-black institutions. METHODOLOGY The tables presented in this report are based on data from the National Postsecondary Aid Study (NPSAS), analyzed using the data analysis system for the and studies. The NPSAS is a large, statistically significant survey undergraduate and graduate students to determine how they paid for college. The NPSAS is conducted every four years by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at the US Department Education. The NPSAS was based on a nationallyrepresentative stratified sample more than 114,000 undergraduate students and 14,000 graduate and pressional students. The NPSAS was based on a nationally-representative stratified sample more than 80,000 undergraduate students and 11,000 graduate and pressional students. The statistics in this report concern the distribution financial aid according to race, without regard to whether racial preferences were used in the awarding the financial aid funds. Most scholarships do not use explicit racial preferences. There may, however, be implicit racial preferences. For example, scholarship search background prile data demonstrates that minority students are less likely to Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F. Supp. 1419, 1477 (N.D. Miss. 1995), aff d in part, rev d in part, remanded, 111 F.3d 1183 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 871 (1998)

4 participate in equestrian sports, so rodeo scholarships and scholarships for horseback riding tend to be disproportionately awarded to Caucasian students. Similarly, scholarships for students majoring in Black Studies tend to be disproportionately awarded to African-American students. Additional examples implicit racial preferences are discussed in the analysis section at the end this paper. PRIVATE SCHOLARSHIPS Overall, 5.5% undergraduate students received private sector scholarships in , and the average amount received by those students was $2,523. The following table provides information about the distribution private scholarships to students from each race, including the probability winning a scholarship, the number recipients, the total scholarship funding and a comparison the percentage recipients, the percentage funding and the percentage the student population. As this table demonstrates, Caucasian students are more likely to win private scholarships than African-American, Latino or Asian students. While there are very few private scholarships that are explicitly restricted to Caucasian students, Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share private scholarship funding. Caucasian students represent 69.3% private scholarship recipients but only 61.8% the undergraduate student population. This is in contrast with minority students, who represent 30.5% scholarship recipients and 38.0% the undergraduate student population. Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. To put minority students on an equal footing would require increasing annual private scholarship awards for African-American students by $83 million and Latino students by $197 million. These figures are based on equalizing the mean grant, the ratio total funding to total student enrollment, so that all racial groups have the same mean grant. Equalizing just the probability receiving a private scholarship without changing the average scholarship amount per recipient would require increasing total private scholarship funding by $138 million for African-American students and $179 million for Latino students. s All s s 5.5% $2,523 $2,908 million 1,152, % 100.0% 100.0% White 6.2% $2,368 $1,891 million 798, % 65.0% 61.8% All Minority s 4.4% $2,871 $1,008 million 351, % 34.7% 38.0% Black or African-American 4.4% $2,671 $345 million 129, % 11.9% 14.0% Hispanic or Latino 3.5% $2,269 $236 million 103, % 8.1% 14.1% Asian 4.3% $3,516 $186 million 52, % 6.4% 5.9% American Indian or Alaska Native % $2,935 $56 million 19, % 1.9% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander % $4,900 $30 million 6, % 1.0% 0.7% More Than One 8.1% $3,878 $156 million 40, % 5.4% 2.4% This table reports the percentage students receiving scholarships by race and not the percentage scholarships that are restricted to students each race. Minority students can and do win many scholarships that are not race-exclusive. Less than 5% all scholarship programs and less than 10% the total number individual scholarships consider the student's race among their eligibility criteria. Most race-restricted scholarships also include additional criteria based on academic performance, extracurricular activities and community service. 13 The figures for American Indian or Alaska Native students may be unreliable due to small sample size. 14 The figures for Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander students may be unreliable due to small sample size

5 The following pie chart shows the distribution total private scholarship funding by race, demonstrating that Caucasian students receive the majority private scholarship funding. Distribution by, Black or African American 11.9% Hispanic or Latino 8.1% Asian 6.4% American Indian or Alaska Native 1.9% White 65.2% More than one race 5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1% The next table provides information on the distribution private scholarships by race, but only for students who are enrolled full-time/full-year in Bachelor s degree programs at 4-year colleges and universities. 15 Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share these scholarships. Minority students represent 31.0% the student population but only 27.5% the scholarship recipients, while Caucasian students represent 68.2% the student population and 71.7% the scholarship recipients. s Bachelor s Degree Programs 4-year, Full-Time/Full-Year s 12.1% $2,789 $1,799 million 644, % 100.0% 100.0% White 12.7% $2,651 $1,226 million 462, % 68.1% 68.2% All Minority s 10.7% $3,073 $544 million 177, % 30.2% 31.0% Black or African-American 11.7% $2,949 $196 million 66, % 10.9% 10.7% Hispanic or Latino 9.1% $2,330 $123 million 52, % 6.8% 10.9% Asian 8.4% $3,158 $90 million 28, % 5.0% 6.4% American Indian or Alaska Native % $4,153 $35 million 8, % 2.0% 0.5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander % NA NA NA NA NA NA More Than One 15.4% $4,773 $100 million 21, % 5.6% 2.6% 15 The table on page 17 the Secrets to Winning a (2011) book reports that minority students represent 33.8% applicants but only 28.5% scholarship recipients, compared with the 31.0% and 27.5% figures from this table. The book s table differs from this table because that table adds a restriction to students who applied for financial aid and this table adds a restriction to students in Bachelor s degree programs (some undergraduate students at 4-year colleges are enrolled in Associate s degree or Certificate programs). 16 The figures for American Indian or Alaska Native students may be unreliable due to small sample size. 17 The figures for Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander students may be unreliable due to small sample size

6 The following table provides information on the distribution private scholarships by race, but only for students who received a Pell. This demonstrates that Caucasian students are still more likely to win private scholarships than African-American, Latino or Asian students even when adjusted for differences in financial need. Minority students represent 52.7% Pell recipients but receive only 46.6% private scholarships, while Caucasian students represent 46.3% Pell recipients but receive 52.5% private scholarships. s Pell s 6.0% $2,658 $919 million 345, % 100.0% 100.0% White 6.9% $2,446 $444 million 181, % 48.3% 46.3% All Minority s 5.3% $2,872 $463 million 161, % 50.3% 52.7% Black or African-American 5.2% $2,716 $192 million 70, % 20.9% 23.7% Hispanic or Latino 4.1% $2,366 $112 million 47, % 12.2% 20.4% Asian 6.8% $3,832 $72 million 18, % 7.9% 4.8% American Indian or Alaska Native 10.0% $3,235 $21 million 6, % 2.3% 1.1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 4.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA More Than One 11.5% $3,703 $65 million 17, % 7.1% 2.7% The following table provides information on the distribution private scholarships by race, but only for students with a high school GPA 3.5 or better on a 4.0 scale (A- to A). Even among these high GPA students, Caucasian students are more likely to win private scholarships than African-American, Latino or Asian students. Minority students represent 29.2% high GPA students but receive only 22.4% private scholarships, while Caucasian students represent 70.0% high GPA students but receive 76.8% private scholarships. s H.S. GPA 3.5 (A- to A) s % $2,731 $1,531 million 560, % 100.0% 100.0% White 11.4% $2,570 $1,106 million 430, % 72.3% 70.0% All Minority s 8.0% $3,228 $405 million 125, % 26.5% 29.2% Black or African-American 9.1% $3,235 $112 million 34, % 7.3% 7.1% Hispanic or Latino 6.2% $2,665 $103 million 38, % 6.7% 11.6% Asian 6.9% $3,160 $88 million 27, % 5.7% 7.5% American Indian or Alaska Native 20.3% $4,890 $33 million 6, % 2.2% 0.6% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 9.4% NA NA NA NA NA NA More Than One 14.0% $3,917 $69 million 17, % 4.5% 2.3% The following table provides information on the distribution private scholarships by race, but only for students with a college GPA 3.5 or better on a 4.0 scale (A- to A). Even among these high GPA students, Caucasian students are more likely to win private scholarships than African-American, Latino or Asian students. Minority students represent 29.9% high GPA students but receive only 22.2% private scholarships, while Caucasian students represent 69.3% high GPA students but receive 76.9% private scholarships. 18 The percentage student population column in both the high school and college GPA tables is restricted to the percentage just high GPA students. A subsequent table illustrates how the percentage students in the high GPA group varies according to race. Note that 14.0% Caucasian students and 13.3% Asian students with an SAT combined score (or ACT equivalent) 1300/1600 received private scholarships, compared with 8.9% African-American students and 5.7% Latino students

7 s College GPA 3.5 (A- to A) s 7.3% $2,623 $1,152 million 439, % 100.0% 100.0% White 8.1% $2,444 $825 million 337, % 71.6% 69.3% All Minority s 5.4% $3,181 $310 million 97, % 26.9% 29.9% Black or African-American 5.1% $2,654 $75 million 28, % 6.5% 9.2% Hispanic or Latino 3.8% $2,583 $67 million 25, % 5.8% 11.3% Asian 6.8% $3,363 $88 million 26, % 7.7% 6.4% American Indian or Alaska Native 11.5% $2,897 $13 million 4, % 1.1% 0.7% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 7.4% NA NA NA NA NA NA More Than One 8.9% $5,311 $67 million 12, % 5.8% 2.4% The following table shows how the number private scholarship recipients in the high GPA group varies as a percentage total student enrollments according to race. Almost a third Caucasian students and Asian students who received private scholarships are in the high college GPA group, but only about a fifth African-American, Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander students. This difference is the equivalent about a 0.25 difference in the GPA on a 4.0 scale overall, and a 0.40 GPA difference for African-American students. GPA 3.5 (A- to A) with High GPA (College) with High GPA (High School) 28.8% 25.7% White 32.3% 29.2% All Minority s 23.1% 20.2% Black or African-American 18.8% 13.0% Hispanic or Latino 22.9% 21.2% Asian 31.3% 32.7% American Indian or Alaska Native 22.4% 19.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 23.8% 22.7% More Than One 28.6% 25.4% The next table shows the distribution high school GPA for all students, not just private scholarship recipients. Caucasian students are more likely to have higher grades than African-American, Latino and other minority students except for Asian students. High School GPA (D- to D) (D to C-) (C- to C) (C to B-) (B- to B) (B to A-) (A- to A) 0.1% 0.4% 1.9% 12.9% 14.0% 37.3% 33.4% White 0.1% 0.3% 1.8% 11.1% 13.0% 36.5% 37.3% All Minority s 0.2% 0.5% 2.2% 16.0% 15.6% 38.6% 27.0% Black or African-American 0.1% 0.8% 3.3% 20.2% 19.2% 36.8% 19.7% Hispanic or Latino 0.2% 0.3% 1.9% 15.4% 15.4% 40.4% 26.4% Asian 0.2% 0.2% 1.1% 9.8% 10.9% 37.6% 40.2% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.8% 1.3% 2.8% 16.1% 10.6% 40.3% 28.2% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.2% 2.9% 17.0% 15.5% 36.7% 27.7% More Than One 0.1% 0.4% 1.6% 14.8% 11.8% 39.0% 32.4% The next table shows the distribution college GPA for all students, not just private scholarship recipients. Caucasian students are much more likely to have higher grades than African-American, Latino and other minority students except for Asian students

8 College GPA (D- to D) (D to C-) (C- to C) (C to B-) (B- to B) (B to A-) (A- to A) 1.1% 3.4% 5.4% 13.2% 19.1% 25.6% 32.3% White 0.9% 2.8% 4.3% 11.7% 17.8% 26.2% 36.3% All Minority s 1.4% 4.3% 7.0% 15.6% 21.3% 24.6% 25.8% Black or African-American 2.0% 5.1% 8.2% 18.0% 22.1% 23.5% 21.0% Hispanic or Latino 1.3% 4.2% 7.0% 15.3% 21.1% 25.4% 25.6% Asian 0.7% 2.8% 4.1% 12.1% 19.0% 26.0% 35.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 1.2% 4.1% 10.2% 13.7% 25.8% 20.4% 24.6% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.1% 5.0% 5.9% 18.0% 18.4% 25.9% 25.7% More Than One 0.8% 3.2% 6.1% 12.3% 22.0% 23.5% 32.1% PELL GRANT The Federal Pell is the largest need-based federal grant program. The following table illustrates the distribution the Pell according to race. While minority students are more likely to receive such need-based grants than Caucasian students, the distribution is largely consistent with the prevalence minority students in the low-income student population. 19 Minority students receive more need-based grants because minority students are more likely to be low income than Caucasian students. Of students who submitted the Free Application for Federal Aid (FAFSA), 83.0% African-American students, 79.6% Latino students and 69.5% Asian students are low-income, compared with only 55.3% Caucasian students. There are slight differences between the distribution Pell recipients by race and the distribution low-income students by race. These differences are due primarily to minority students having family income skewed lower than Caucasian students even within the low-income population. For example, the average family AGI for low-income Caucasian students is $22,217, compared with $20,053 for lowincome minority students. Pell Pell Pell Pell Pell Low-Income Pell s Pell 27.3% $2,559 $14,634 million 5,719, % 100.0% 100.0% White 20.5% $2,441 $6,463 million 2,648, % 44.2% 48.7% All Minority s 38.4% $2,661 $8,121 million 3,051, % 55.5% 51.0% Black or African-American 46.3% $2,598 $3,515 million 1,352, % 24.0% 22.3% Hispanic or Latino 39.4% $2,700 $3,147 million 1,165, % 21.5% 19.3% Asian 22.4% $2,886 $800 million 277, % 5.5% 5.0% American Indian or Alaska Native 36.1% $2,544 $162 million 63, % 1.1% 1.1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 26.2% $2,424 $96 million 39, % 0.7% 0.7% More Than One 30.8% $2,631 $401 million 152, % 2.7% 2.7% INSTITUTIONAL GRANTS Institutional grants are awarded by colleges and universities from their own student aid funds. These funds are derived from endowment income and tuition revenue. The major types institutional grants are need-based and merit-based. Merit-based aid is awarded to attract academically talented and wealthier students to the college as a form financial aid leveraging. 20 A full-pay student even with a significant discount in the form a merit-based grant still yields more net revenue to the college than low or 19 Low income is defined as family AGI less than $50,000. Almost all (95.9%) Pell recipients have family AGI less than $50, Leveraging is defined as using student financial aid funding as a recruiting tool

9 moderate-income students. This helps the college control its discount rate, the ratio institutional grant aid to tuition revenue. There are also institutional grants that are based on neither financial need nor merit, such as tuition waivers for children college faculty and staff and tuition waivers for resident assistants in the dormitories, but these grants represent less than 8% total institutional grant funding. As the following tables demonstrate, there are significant differences in the distribution need-based and meritbased institutional grants by race. The first table illustrates the distribution total institutional grants according to race. Caucasian students receive a total $14.3 billion in institutional grant funding, compared with $6.4 billion in institutional grant funding to minority students. Overall, the distribution total institutional grants by race is largely consistent with the prevalence Caucasian and minority students within the student population. That suggests that differences in the distribution need-based grants tend to be balanced by differences in the distribution merit-based grants and other non-need-based grants. Institutional s All s s 19.9% $4,972 $20,689 million 4,161, % 100.0% 100.0% White 20.0% $5,533 $14,288 million 2,582, % 69.1% 61.8% All Minority s 19.7% $4,058 $6,366 million 1,568, % 30.8% 38.0% Black or African-American 16.5% $4,354 $2,097 million 481, % 10.1% 14.0% Hispanic or Latino 21.3% $3,208 $2,021 million 630, % 9.8% 14.1% Asian 22.4% $5,279 $1,464 million 277, % 7.1% 5.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 15.3% $3,359 $90 million 26, % 0.4% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 23.3% $2,948 $104 million 35, % 0.5% 0.7% More Than One 23.7% $5,018 $589 million 117, % 2.8% 2.4% The next table shows the distribution merit-based institutional grants according to race. Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share merit-based institutional grants, with Caucasian students receiving 75.5% merit-based institutional grants despite representing only 61.8% the student population. Minority students, on the other hand, receive 24.4% merit-based institutional grants, even though they represent 38.0% the student population. Caucasian students are almost twice as likely to receive institutional merit-based grants as minority students. 21 Institutional s Merit-Based s s 8.8% $5,347 $9,801 million 1,833, % 100.0% 100.0% White 10.7% $5,375 $7,438 million 1,383, % 75.9% 61.8% All Minority s 5.6% $5,259 $2,352 million 447, % 24.0% 38.0% Black or African-American 5.9% $5,238 $896 million 171, % 9.1% 14.0% Hispanic or Latino 4.8% $4,839 $686 million 141, % 7.0% 14.1% Asian 5.8% $6,543 $472 million 72, % 4.8% 5.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 7.0% $3,909 $48 million 12, % 0.5% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 4.5% $4,587 $31 million 6, % 0.3% 0.7% More Than One 8.7% $5,066 $219 million 43, % 2.2% 2.4% A 1994 study race-exclusive scholarships by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that only 5% college-controlled scholarships awarded in were restricted to minority students, % Caucasian students with a combined SAT score (or equivalent ACT score) 1400 or more out 1600 received institutional merit-based grants, compared with 8.2% African-American students, 19.8% Latino students, and 17.7% Asian students

10 representing 4% college-controlled scholarship funding. 22 Accordingly, minority-targeted grants represent a very small share institutional grants. The study was based on a nationally-representative survey year colleges and universities. The next table shows the distribution need-based institutional grants according to race. Minority students receive a higher share need-based institutional grants (45.0% need-based institutional grants vs. 38.0% the student population) because they are more likely to have lower income than Caucasian students. Institutional s Need-Based s s 12.6% $3,539 $9,297 million 2,626, % 100.0% 100.0% White 11.1% $3,924 $5,642 million 1,437, % 60.7% 61.8% All Minority s 14.9% $3,082 $3,640 million 1,180, % 39.1% 38.0% Black or African-American 10.8% $3,295 $1,043 million 316, % 11.2% 14.0% Hispanic or Latino 17.3% $2,375 $1,220 million 513, % 13.1% 14.1% Asian 17.9% $4,226 $936 million 221, % 10.1% 5.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 9.1% $2,512 $40 million 16, % 0.4% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 19.7% $2,200 $66 million 29, % 0.7% 0.7% More Than One 16.8% $4,016 $335 million 83, % 3.6% 2.4% Opponents affirmative action have targeted affirmative action policies at public colleges through lawsuits in state courts and ballot initiatives. The next several tables explore differences in institutional grants by control institution for public, non-prit and for-prit colleges. Public Colleges The first table shows the distribution institutional grants according to race at public colleges. Minority students receive a higher share institutional grant funding at public colleges, 43.3% the institutional grants vs. 37.0% the student population. But this is largely due to differences in the distribution need-based and merit-based institutional grants at public colleges. Since public colleges are ten the lowest-cost option available to low-income students, they tend to attract a greater share low-income students than non-prit colleges. Minority students are more likely to be in the low-income group than Caucasian students. Institutional s Public Colleges All s s 15.6% $2,445 $6,060 million 2,478, % 100.0% 100.0% White 14.0% $2,674 $3,735 million 1,396, % 61.6% 62.7% All Minority s 18.3% $2,154 $2,314 million 1,074, % 38.2% 37.0% Black or African-American 14.8% $2,900 $894 million 308, % 14.7% 13.1% Hispanic or Latino 21.2% $1,559 $717 million 459, % 11.8% 13.7% Asian 18.8% $2,342 $442 million 188, % 7.3% 6.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 13.0% $2,184 $40 million 18, % 0.7% 0.9% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 21.6% $1,429 $36 million 25, % 0.6% 0.7% More Than One 19.8% $2,499 $185 million 74, % 3.1% 2.4% 22 Linda G. Morra, Higher Education: Information on Minority-Targeted s, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), HEHS-94-77, January 14, Summary: Full Report:

11 The next table shows the distribution institutional merit-based grants at public colleges. Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share these grants. Caucasian students represent 73.1% merit-based grant recipients, but only 62.7% the student population at public colleges. Caucasian students are more than one-and-a-half times as likely as minority students to receive a merit-based scholarship at a public college. Caucasian students receive $2.0 billion in institutional merit-based grant funding, more than double the $937 million received by minority students. Institutional s Public Colleges Merit-Based s s 5.3% $3,503 $2,965 million 846, % 100.0% 100.0% White 6.2% $3,269 $2,022 million 618, % 68.2% 62.7% All Minority s 3.9% $4,133 $937 million 226, % 16.6% 37.0% Black or African-American 4.7% $5,075 $491 million 96, % 7.2% 13.1% Hispanic or Latino 3.0% $3,234 $212 million 65, % 4.3% 13.7% Asian 3.2% $4,032 $129 million 31, % 0.7% 6.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 5.5% $2,528 $20 million 7, % NA 0.9% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.8% NA NA NA NA NA 0.7% More Than One 6.0% $3,552 $80 million 22, % 2.7% 2.4% The next table shows the distribution institutional need-based grants at public colleges. Minority students are more likely to receive these grants than Caucasian students. Minority students represent 52.4% institutional need-based grant recipients, but only 37.0% the student population. Institutional s Public Colleges Need-Based s s 10.1% $1,526 $2,453 million 1,607, % 100.0% 100.0% White 7.6% $1,662 $1,261 million 758, % 51.4% 62.7% All Minority s 14.3% $1,408 $1,186 million 842, % 48.3% 37.0% Black or African-American 9.8% $1,584 $321 million 202, % 13.1% 13.1% Hispanic or Latino 18.2% $1,157 $458 million 395, % 18.7% 13.7% Asian 16.0% $1,792 $286 million 159, % 11.7% 6.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 7.9% $1,651 $18 million 11, % 0.7% 0.9% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 18.5% $1,087 $23 million 21, % 0.9% 0.7% More Than One 13.6% $1,544 $79 million 51, % 3.2% 2.4% Non-Prit Colleges The next table shows the distribution institutional grants by race at non-prit colleges. Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share institutional grants at non-prit colleges. Caucasian students receive almost three-quarters (72.7%) institutional grants at non-prit colleges, but represent only two-thirds (66.8%) the student population. Institutional s Non-Prit Colleges All s s 50.7% $9,345 $14,397 million 1,540, % 100.0% 100.0% White 55.2% $9,344 $10,466 million 1,120, % 72.7% 66.8% All Minority s 41.9% $9,350 $3,909 million 418, % 27.2% 32.9% Black or African-American 37.4% $8,618 $1,140 million 132, % 7.9% 11.7% Hispanic or Latino 39.2% $8,592 $1,242 million 144, % 8.6% 12.1% Asian 50.4% $11,877 $1,017 million 85, % 7.1% 5.6% American Indian or Alaska Native 38.9% $6,594 $42 million 6, % 0.3% 0.5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 45.2% $6,863 $68 million 9, % 0.5% 0.7% More Than One 58.1% $10,154 $401 million 39, % 2.8% 2.2%

12 The next table shows the distribution institutional merit-based grants by race at non-prit colleges. Caucasian students receive an even greater share these institutional grants, about four-fifths (79.4%) the total despite representing only two-thirds the student population. Institutional s Non-Prit Colleges Merit-Based s s 30.3% $7,305 $6,734 million 921, % 100.0% 100.0% White 36.0% $7,343 $5,375 million 732, % 79.8% 66.8% All Minority s 18.9% $7,168 $1,355 million 189, % 20.1% 32.9% Black or African-American 16.4% $6,650 $386 million 58, % 5.7% 11.7% Hispanic or Latino 17.5% $6,855 $444 million 64, % 6.6% 12.1% Asian 23.2% $8,700 $342 million 39, % 5.1% 5.6% American Indian or Alaska Native 15.8% NA NA NA NA NA 0.5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 20.9% $5,623 $26 million 4, % 0.4% 0.7% More Than One 29.2% $6,958 $138 million 19, % 2.1% 2.2% The next table shows the distribution institutional need-based grants by race at non-prit colleges. The distribution institutional need-based grants by race is proportional to the student population. Perhaps the higher cost the colleges means that both Caucasian and minority students demonstrate financial need at non-prit colleges. Institutional s Non-Prit Colleges Need-Based s s 31.2% $7,134 $6,763 million 948, % 100.0% 100.0% White 31.9% $6,719 $4,348 million 647, % 64.3% 66.8% All Minority s 30.0% $8,031 $2,404 million 299, % 35.6% 32.9% Black or African-American 26.6% $7,412 $697 million 94, % 10.3% 11.7% Hispanic or Latino 28.0% $7,179 $742 million 103, % 11.0% 12.1% Asian 35.2% $10,830 $648 million 59, % 9.6% 5.6% American Indian or Alaska Native 27.9% $4,782 $22 million 4, % 0.3% 0.5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 37.2% $5,157 $42 million 8, % 0.6% 0.7% More Than One 43.5% $8,604 $255 million 29, % 3.8% 2.2% For-Prit Colleges The next table shows the distribution institutional grants by race at for-prit colleges. The distribution institutional grants by race is proportional to the student population at for-prit colleges. Note that minority students are in the majority at for-prit colleges. Institutional s For-Prit Colleges All s s 7.1% $1,630 $231 million 142, % 100.0% 100.0% White 7.0% $1,344 $88 million 65, % 37.9% 46.5% All Minority s 7.2% $1,877 $143 million 76, % 61.9% 53.2% Black or African-American 8.3% $1,524 $63 million 41, % 27.1% 24.7% Hispanic or Latino 6.1% $2,451 $63 million 25, % 27.1% 21.0% Asian 4.9% $1,832 $6 million 3, % 2.5% 3.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 12.2% NA NA NA NA NA 1.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2.4% NA NA NA NA NA 0.7% More Than One 7.1% $695 $3 million 3, % 1.1% 2.6%

13 The next table shows the distribution institutional merit-based grants by race at for-prit colleges. Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share merit-based grants at for-prit colleges. Caucasian students receive 51.2% institutional merit-based grants at for-prit colleges, but represent only 46.5% the student population. Institutional s For-Prit Colleges Merit-Based s s 3.2% $1,565 $101 million 64, % 100.0% 100.0% White 3.6% $1,230 $41 million 33, % 40.3% 46.5% All Minority s 3.0% $1,918 $61 million 31, % 59.8% 53.2% Black or African-American 3.3% $1,194 $20 million 16, % 19.3% 24.7% Hispanic or Latino 2.7% $2,645 $30 million 11, % 29.7% 21.0% Asian 1.4% NA NA NA NA NA 3.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 10.1% NA NA NA NA NA 1.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.0% NA NA NA NA NA 0.7% More Than One 1.7% NA NA NA NA NA 2.6% The next table shows the distribution institutional need-based grants by race at for-prit colleges. The distribution institutional need-based grants by race is proportional to the student population at forprit colleges. Institutional s For-Prit Colleges Need-Based s s 3.6% $1,146 $82 million 71, % 100.0% 100.0% White 3.5% $1,027 $33 million 32, % 40.1% 46.5% All Minority s 3.7% $1,243 $49 million 39, % 59.5% 53.2% Black or African-American 4.0% $1,227 $24 million 19, % 29.4% 24.7% Hispanic or Latino 3.4% $1,402 $20 million 14, % 24.5% 21.0% Asian 3.3% $1,314 $3 million 2, % 3.4% 3.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 2.2% NA NA NA NA NA 1.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.4% NA NA NA NA NA 0.7% More Than One 5.0% NA NA NA NA NA 2.6% Differences in Enrollment Patterns by Differences in the distribution need-based grants to minority students may be due in part to differences in the distribution minority students at public, non-prit and for-prit colleges. Minority students and Caucasian students tend to be disproportionately enrolled at lower-cost colleges. 23 Financial aid at higher-cost colleges is necessarily higher, perhaps accounting for part the reason why Caucasian students tend to get more need-based aid overall. The table to the right shows the distribution students by race and institutional control. This Distribution s by Control Public Non-Prit For-Prit 75.9% 14.5% 9.5% White 77.1% 15.7% 7.2% All Minority s 74.1% 12.6% 13.4% Black or African-American 71.0% 12.1% 16.9% Hispanic or Latino 73.4% 12.5% 14.1% Asian 81.0% 13.7% 5.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 80.0% 9.2% 10.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 76.8% 14.5% 8.7% More Than One 75.8% 13.7% 10.4% 23 Higher cost colleges tend to have more selective admissions policies. Both the higher sticker price and the greater selectivity lead to lower enrollment by low-income students

14 seems to indicate a similar share minority students at public colleges and nearly double the share minority students at for-prit colleges. However, the next table disaggregates this data by degree program, demonstrating that minority students are more likely to be enrolled in Certificate and Associate s degree programs at public and non-prit colleges, and less likely to be enrolled in Bachelor s degree programs. Distribution s By Control and Degree Program Public Non-Prit For-Prit Certificate Assoc. Bach. Certificate Assoc. Bach. Certificate Assoc. Bach. 3.8% 38.2% 32.8% 0.3% 0.7% 14.2% 3.5% 3.9% 2.6% White 3.6% 36.3% 34.9% 0.1% 0.5% 14.5% 3.1% 4.2% 2.7% All Minority s 4.3% 41.3% 29.3% 0.6% 1.1% 13.4% 3.8% 3.6% 2.6% Black or African-American 5.3% 41.2% 28.4% 0.3% 1.1% 13.8% 3.1% 4.1% 2.9% Hispanic or Latino 4.0% 43.9% 26.9% 1.1% 1.1% 13.0% 5.0% 2.9% 2.1% Asian 3.2% 35.8% 35.8% 0.4% 0.6% 14.2% 3.3% 3.2% 3.5% American Indian or Alaska Native 4.5% 43.2% 27.2% 0.5% 7.5% 7.2% 2.0% 6.8% 1.2% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 4.4% 47.7% 22.8% 0.2% 3.0% 12.0% 3.7% 3.7% 2.6% More Than One 2.6% 38.2% 34.0% 0.2% 0.8% 14.1% 2.9% 4.0% 3.0% The next table shows the distribution students according to selectivity. Selectivity For-Prit or Less than 4-Year Open Admission Minimally Selective Moderately Selective Very Selective 53.9% 4.8% 6.1% 24.1% 11.1% White 50.1% 4.2% 6.6% 27.0% 12.1% All Minority s 60.2% 5.8% 5.3% 19.3% 9.5% Black or African-American 62.1% 5.2% 6.7% 19.5% 6.5% Hispanic or Latino 61.4% 8.1% 5.0% 17.3% 8.1% Asian 52.7% 2.1% 3.3% 22.2% 19.7% American Indian or Alaska Native 65.1% 9.5% 7.0% 15.5% 3.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 68.4% 2.1% 2.1% 17.8% 9.6% More Than One 55.1% 4.3% 4.4% 24.6% 11.6% Minority students are 11.7% more likely to be enrolled at for-prit, less-than-4-year or open admission colleges, 1.3% less likely to be enrolled at minimally selective colleges, 7.7% less likely to be enrolled at moderately selective colleges and 2.6% less likely to be enrolled at very selective colleges. The main exception is Asian students, who seem to enroll at selective colleges at much greater rates. TOTAL GRANTS The next several tables report on total grants from all sources except for the education tax benefits, including federal grants, state grants, institutional grants, employer tuition reimbursement and private scholarships. The subsequent tables disaggregate the data into merit-based and need-based grants. The first table shows the distribution total grants by race. The distribution grant recipients and total grant funding tends to track the prevalence in the student population, with only a few percentage points difference. As with the institutional grants, however, there are significant differences in the distribution merit-based and need-based grants

15 s All s s 51.7% $4,864 $52,646 million 10,822, % 100.0% 100.0% White 48.2% $5,008 $31,230 million 6,235, % 59.3% 61.8% All Minority s 57.4% $4,672 $21,287 million 4,556, % 40.4% 38.0% Black or African-American 63.5% $4,372 $8,113 million 1,855, % 15.4% 14.0% Hispanic or Latino 58.1% $4,314 $7,425 million 1,720, % 14.1% 14.1% Asian 43.1% $6,444 $3,430 million 532, % 6.5% 5.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 60.4% $4,327 $461 million 106, % 0.9% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 49.3% $4,097 $305 million 74, % 0.6% 0.7% More Than One 53.8% $5,831 $1,553 million 266, % 2.9% 2.4% The next table shows the distribution total merit-based grants by race. Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share total merit-based grants. Caucasian students represent 73.6% meritbased grant recipients but only 61.8% the student population. Minority students represent 26.2% merit-based grant recipients, but only 38.0% the student population. s Merit-Based s s 12.0% $4,646 $11,698 million 2,517, % 100.0% 100.0% White 14.3% $4,774 $8,845 million 1,853, % 75.6% 61.8% All Minority s 8.3% $4,296 $2,838 million 660, % 24.3% 38.0% Black or African-American 9.5% $3,982 $1,107 million 278, % 9.5% 14.0% Hispanic or Latino 6.9% $4,092 $835 million 204, % 7.1% 14.1% Asian 7.8% $5,613 $542 million 96, % 4.6% 5.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 8.9% $3,375 $53 million 15, % 0.5% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 5.6% $4,636 $39 million 8, % 0.3% 0.7% More Than One 11.7% $4,525 $262 million 58, % 2.2% 2.4% The following pie chart shows the distribution total merit-based grants by race, demonstrating that Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share all merit-based grant funding, about three-quarters merit-based grant funding. Distribution Merit-Based s by, White 75.7% More than one race 2.2% Black or African American 9.5% Hispanic or Latino 7.1% Asian 4.6% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.3% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.5%

16 The next table shows the distribution total need-based grants by race. Minority students receive a higher share need-based grants, representing 48.5% grant recipients and only 38.0% the student population, but they are more likely to be low-income. s Need-Based s s 36.6% $4,030 $30,887 million 7,644, % 100.0% 100.0% White 30.3% $4,041 $15,836 million 3,918, % 51.3% 61.8% All Minority s 46.8% $4,022 $14,964 million 3,720, % 48.4% 38.0% Black or African-American 52.4% $3,734 $5,726 million 1,533, % 18.5% 14.0% Hispanic or Latino 49.0% $3,818 $5,542 million 1,451, % 17.9% 14.1% Asian 32.3% $5,755 $2,300 million 399, % 7.4% 5.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 42.0% $3,388 $251 million 74, % 0.8% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 38.4% $3,463 $201 million 58, % 0.7% 0.7% More Than One 41.1% $4,638 $944 million 203, % 3.1% 2.4% EDUCATION TAX BENEFITS Education tax benefits include the Hope tax credit, the Lifetime Learning tax credit and the Tuition & Fees deduction. The following table shows that Caucasian students receive a higher share the education tax benefits, perhaps because Caucasian students tend to come from higher income families. The education tax benefits provide a greater financial benefit to middle and upper income families. Education Tax s s 46.7% $695 $6,252 million 8,995, % 100.0% 100.0% White 50.7% $722 $4,353 million 6,032, % 69.6% 61.8% All Minority s 40.2% $641 $1,884 million 2,937, % 30.1% 38.0% Black or African-American 39.3% $668 $714 million 1,069, % 11.4% 14.0% Hispanic or Latino 40.7% $592 $655 million 1,106, % 10.5% 14.1% Asian 40.4% $659 $295 million 447, % 4.7% 5.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 36.3% $642 $39 million 60, % 0.6% 0.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 45.4% $655 $41 million 62, % 0.7% 0.7% More Than One 42.8% $731 $140 million 191, % 2.2% 2.4% This difference in the distribution correlates well with income. This data predates the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, which made the Hope tax credit partially refundable. Even so, Caucasian students are likely to still receive a disproportionately greater share the Hope tax credit funding. The partial refundability is limited to $1,000, only 40% the maximum tax credit $2,500. The following table shows the distribution the education tax benefits by income, with a disproportionately greater share received by middle-income families. Education Tax s AGI s Less than $50, % $603 $2,692 million 4,464, % 43.1% 57.3% $50,000 to $100, % $878 $2,687 million 3,061, % 43.0% 27.6% $100,000 or more 50.6% $594 $874 million 1,470, % 14.0% 15.1% The next table shows the percentage students who are low, middle and upper income by race. This table demonstrates that minority students are much more likely to be low income than Caucasian students

17 Distribution s By Adjusted Gross Income with AGI Less than $50,000 with AGI $50,000 to $100,000 with AGI $100,000 or More 56.9% 27.7% 15.4% White 48.2% 32.0% 19.9% All Minority s 71.2% 20.8% 8.0% Black or African-American 77.4% 17.5% 5.2% Hispanic or Latino 71.2% 20.9% 7.9% Asian 61.3% 25.7% 12.9% American Indian or Alaska Native 67.2% 24.4% 8.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 64.3% 25.0% 10.7% More Than One 62.2% 25.0% 12.9% GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS for graduate and pressional students tends to be distributed in proportion to the student population, in part because most graduate and pressional students demonstrate financial need and in part because graduate and pressional students have also demonstrated academic merit to satisfy the admissions criteria. The first table shows the distribution private fellowships to graduate and pressional students by race. s s 3.7% $5,797 $736 million 127, % 100.0% 100.0% White 3.3% $4,989 $382 million 76, % 51.9% 66.6% All Minority s 4.4% $7,065 $353 million 49, % 47.9% 33.1% Black or African-American 4.0% $5,828 $96 million 16, % 13.0% 11.7% Hispanic or Latino 4.9% $7,601 $103 million 13, % 14.0% 8.0% Asian 3.9% $7,593 $112 million 14, % 15.2% 10.8% American Indian or Alaska Native 18.7% NA NA NA NA NA 0.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.2% NA NA NA NA NA 0.3% More Than One 4.6% NA NA NA NA NA 2.1% The next table shows the distribution institutional grants to graduate and pressional students by race. Institutional s s 19.2% $8,835 $5,866 million 664, % 100.0% 100.0% White 18.5% $8,311 $3,537 million 425, % 60.3% 66.6% All Minority s 20.7% $9,761 $2,312 million 236, % 39.4% 33.1% Black or African-American 12.8% $7,520 $389 million 51, % 6.6% 11.7% Hispanic or Latino 20.9% $10,528 $607 million 57, % 10.4% 8.0% Asian 29.0% $10,502 $1,140 million 108, % 19.4% 10.8% American Indian or Alaska Native 22.9% NA NA NA NA NA 0.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 27.3% NA NA NA NA NA 0.3% More Than One 20.1% $9,440 $136 million 14, % 2.3% 2.1%

18 The next table shows the distribution total grants to graduate and pressional students by race. s s 41.1% $7,518 $10,687 million 1,421, % 100.0% 100.0% White 41.4% $6,896 $6,580 million 954, % 61.6% 66.6% All Minority s 40.6% $8,790 $4,085 million 464, % 38.2% 33.1% Black or African-American 32.8% $7,458 $991 million 132, % 9.3% 11.7% Hispanic or Latino 41.9% $8,577 $991 million 115, % 9.3% 8.0% Asian 47.9% $9,999 $1,796 million 179, % 16.8% 10.8% American Indian or Alaska Native 36.1% NA NA NA NA NA 0.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 52.2% NA NA NA NA NA 0.3% More Than One 40.0% $7,917 $226 million 28, % 2.1% 2.1% Notice that in each the three tables there was a close correlation between the distribution grants and the prevalence each race in the student population. GROWTH IN FUNDING BY RACE The following table shows the growth in mean grants for private scholarships, institutional grants and total grants by race from to Mean grants are the ratio total grant funding divided by the total student enrollments. There has been more growth in mean private scholarships among Caucasian students than minority students during this four year period. Mean institutional grants have also grown faster among minority students. However, mean total grants have grown faster among Caucasian students than minority students, causing the disparity in grant funding by race to widen. Growth in Mean s to s Institutional s s Change Change Change $133 $ % $750 $ % $2,047 $2, % White $138 $ % $841 $1, % $1,938 $2, % All Minority s $124 $ % $596 $ % $2,238 $2, % Black or African-American $122 $ % $596 $ % $2,478 $2, % Hispanic or Latino $101 $ % $476 $ % $2,046 $2, % Asian $122 $ % $853 $1, % $2,201 $2, % American Indian or Alaska Native $307 $ % $471 $ % $2,116 $2, % Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander $77 $ % $527 $ % $1,541 $2, % More Than One $218 $ % $755 $1, % $2,130 $3, % ANALYSIS These statistics demonstrate that, as a whole, private sector scholarship programs tend to perpetuate historical inequities in the distribution scholarships according to race. This does not appear to be due to deliberate discrimination, but rather as a natural result the personal interests the scholarship sponsors. sponsors tend to establish scholarships that select for characteristics, activities and talents interest to them. These factors, in turn, tend to resonate with students the same racial background as the sponsor. For example, African-American students are much less likely to participate in equestrian sports (horseback riding, polo, rodeo), water sports (scuba diving, sailing, surfing, swimming, crew, water polo) and winter sports (ice hockey, skiing, snowboarding, figure skating) than Caucasian students. They are much more likely to pursue basketball, track & field, handball and football. The sponsors rodeo scholarships aren t motivated by a desire to indirectly discriminate against minority

19 students; they just like to promote rodeo. But the net result is that private scholarships as a whole disproportionately select for Caucasian students. Similarly, golf, archery, cycling, weight lifting and wrestling scholarships tend to implicitly select for Caucasian students. Other characteristics that tend to naturally differentiate students and available scholarships according to race include the following. National Origin or Heritage. There are a variety scholarships restricted to students particular ethnicities that are predominantly or exclusively Caucasian, such as students Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, French Canadian, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Jewish, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Scandinavian, Scottish, Serbian, Slavic, Slovak, Swedish, Swiss, Ukrainian and Welsh heritage. Geography. The racial distribution varies by state. s from Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming are disproportionately likely to be Caucasian while Caucasian students from California, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, Texas and Washington DC are no longer in the majority. African-American students are more likely to come from Washington DC, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina and Virginia, and less likely to come from Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico and Iowa. Field Study. African-American students are more likely to pursue majors in black studies, urban studies, petroleum engineering, cosmetology and public administration, and less likely to pursue the physical sciences, economics, conservation, forestry, horticulture, gerontology and education. The opposite is true Caucasian students. s majoring in Latin American Studies, Hispanic Studies, and Spanish Language Teacher Education are more likely to be Latino than Caucasian. Latino students also tend to major in Business, Architecture, Criminal Justice, Fashion Modeling and Culinary Arts. Religion. African-American students are more likely to be Methodist, Episcopalian, Pentecostal, Seventh-day Adventist, Baptist and Muslim and are less likely to be Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Wiccan, Lutheran, Jewish, Mormon or Hindu. Latino students are more likely to be Roman Catholic. Religions where the majority students are Caucasian include Lutheran, Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Mennonite, Mormon, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Wiccan, United Church Christ and Quaker. Religions where the majority students are not Caucasian include Hindu, Methodist, Episcopalian, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-day Adventist, Buddhist, Pentecostal, Church God and Baha'i. Overall, merit-based grants tend to disproportionately select for Caucasian students. This is compensated somewhat by the distribution need-based grants according to race, since minority students tend to be less affluent than Caucasian students. Shifting funding from merit-based grants to need-based grants will yield more balance in the distribution grants according to race, but it will not entirely compensate for private scholarships that collectively demonstrate implicit preferences for Caucasian students

BEYOND NEED AND MERIT Strengthening State Grant Programs

BEYOND NEED AND MERIT Strengthening State Grant Programs May 2012 BEYOND NEED AND MERIT Strengthening State Grant Programs Getty, Peter Glass Brookings Institution State Grant Aid Study Group Sandy Baum, Chair David W. Breneman Matthew M. Chingos Ronald G. Ehrenberg

More information

Trends in0. Trends Higher Education Series COLLEGE PRICING 2014

Trends in0. Trends Higher Education Series COLLEGE PRICING 2014 Trends in0 1 Trends Higher Education Series COLLEGE PRICING 2014 See the Trends in Higher Education website at trends.collegeboard.org for the figures and tables in this report and for more information

More information

When Girls Don t Graduate. A Call to Improve High School Graduation Rates for Girls

When Girls Don t Graduate. A Call to Improve High School Graduation Rates for Girls F When Girls Don t Graduate WE ALL FAIL A Call to Improve High School Graduation Rates for Girls The National Women s Law Center is a nonprofit organization that has been working since 1972 to advance

More information

Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools: Comparisons Across Community, School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics

Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools: Comparisons Across Community, School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS Statistical Analysis Report February 1997 Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools: Comparisons Across Community, School, Teacher, and Student

More information

An NCPR Working Paper. What Is Known About the Impact of Financial Aid? Implications for Policy

An NCPR Working Paper. What Is Known About the Impact of Financial Aid? Implications for Policy An NCPR Working Paper What Is Known About the Impact of Financial Aid? Implications for Policy Bridget Terry Long Harvard Graduate School of Education, National Bureau of Economic Research, and National

More information

CREATED EQUAL. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System. Christopher Hartney / Linh Vuong MARCH 2009

CREATED EQUAL. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System. Christopher Hartney / Linh Vuong MARCH 2009 CREATED EQUAL Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System Christopher Hartney / Linh Vuong MARCH 2009 NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY This report was made possible through

More information

Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States

Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy Third Edition November 2009 Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All

More information

Chapter 2. PROJECTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

Chapter 2. PROJECTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES Chapter 2. PROJECTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES The U.S. population which numbered 311.6 million in 2011, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates has grown by almost 4 percent in the five years since

More information

Action: ABetter. Affirmative. Richard D. Kahlenberg. State Universities that Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences

Action: ABetter. Affirmative. Richard D. Kahlenberg. State Universities that Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences A Century Foundation Report ABetter Affirmative Action: State Universities that Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences Richard D. Kahlenberg Individual State University Profiles by Halley Potter A

More information

MEASURING UP THE NATIONAL REPORT CARD ON HIGHER EDUCATION

MEASURING UP THE NATIONAL REPORT CARD ON HIGHER EDUCATION MEASURING UP 2008 THE NATIONAL REPORT CARD ON HIGHER EDUCATION THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND HIGHER EDUCATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairman THE HONORABLE JAMES B. HUNT JR. Womble Carlyle Sandridge

More information

FLORIDA TEACHERS AND THE TEACHING PROFESSION

FLORIDA TEACHERS AND THE TEACHING PROFESSION FLORIDA TEACHERS AND THE TEACHING PROFESSION Teaching Profession Committee January 2003 FLORIDA TEACHERS and the TEACHING PROFESSION Overview Table of Contents I. THE TEACHER WORKFORCE 2 A. THE RECRUITMENT

More information

AND JUSTICE. Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice System JANUARY 2007 NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY

AND JUSTICE. Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice System JANUARY 2007 NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY AND JUSTICE FORSOME Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice System JANUARY 2007 NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 Methodology

More information

Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States Fifth Edition

Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States Fifth Edition Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States Fifth Edition Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy January 2015 About The Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy The Institute

More information

Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card

Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University David G. Sciarra, Education Law Center Danielle Farrie, Education Law Center Is School Funding Fair? A National Report

More information

EDUCATION BLUEPRINT: AN ECONOMY BUILT TO LAST

EDUCATION BLUEPRINT: AN ECONOMY BUILT TO LAST EDUCATION BLUEPRINT: AN ECONOMY BUILT TO LAST Table of Contents Educating Our Way to An Economy Built to Last 1 Higher Education Access and Success: Securing America s Economic Competitiveness 3 Reforming

More information

California is facing a serious shortfall in its supply of college-educated workers. Projections

California is facing a serious shortfall in its supply of college-educated workers. Projections Closing the Gap Meeting California s Need for College Graduates Hans Johnson Ria Sengupta with contributions from Patrick Murphy Supported with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation istockphoto

More information

First-Generation Students:

First-Generation Students: NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS Statistical Analysis Report June 1998 Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports First-Generation Students: Undergraduates Whose Parents Never Enrolled

More information

MORE THAN SCORES An Analysis of Why and How Parents Choose Private Schools

MORE THAN SCORES An Analysis of Why and How Parents Choose Private Schools MORE THAN SCORES An Analysis of Why and How Parents Choose Private Schools James P. Kelly, III, J.D. and Benjamin Scafidi, Ph.D. November 2013 the friedman foundation for Educational Choice edchoice.org

More information

The Health of the Public Charter School Movement: A State-By-State Analysis

The Health of the Public Charter School Movement: A State-By-State Analysis The Health of the Public Charter School Movement: A State-By-State Analysis OCTOBER 2014 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 3 Methodological Overview 7 The 2014 Health of the Public Charter School Movement

More information

Public Career Education Programs Differ From Private Programs on Their Admission Requirements, Costs, Financial Aid Availability, and Student Outcomes

Public Career Education Programs Differ From Private Programs on Their Admission Requirements, Costs, Financial Aid Availability, and Student Outcomes January 2010 Report No. 10-18 Public Career Education Programs Differ From Private Programs on Their Admission Requirements, Costs, Financial Aid Availability, and Student Outcomes at a glance In 2007-08,

More information

GAO GENDER ISSUES. Women s Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX

GAO GENDER ISSUES. Women s Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title IX GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters July 2004 GENDER ISSUES Women s Participation in the Sciences Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure

More information

Is College Worth It? College Presidents, Public Assess Value, Quality and Mission of Higher Education. Social & Demographic Trends.

Is College Worth It? College Presidents, Public Assess Value, Quality and Mission of Higher Education. Social & Demographic Trends. Social & Demographic Trends May 16, 2011 College Presidents, Assess Value, Quality and Mission of Higher Education Paul Taylor, Director Kim Parker, Associate Director Demographer Richard Fry, Senior Researcher

More information

LOCATING THE DROPOUT CRISIS

LOCATING THE DROPOUT CRISIS LOCATING THE DROPOUT CRISIS Which High Schools Produce the Nation s Dropouts? Where Are They Located? Who Attends Them? Robert Balfanz and Nettie Legters Johns Hopkins University Report 70 September 2004

More information

Demography Is Not Destiny, Revisited

Demography Is Not Destiny, Revisited Demography Is Not Destiny, Revisited Robert B. Friedland and Laura Summer Center on an Aging Society Georgetown University March 2005 ii ABSTRACT: This report provides a framework and some of the basic

More information

The U.S. Nursing Workforce: Trends in Supply and Education

The U.S. Nursing Workforce: Trends in Supply and Education The U.S. Nursing Workforce: Trends in Supply and Education Health Resources and Services Administration Bureau of Health Professions National Center for Health Workforce Analysis April 2013 The Health

More information

Out-of-Field Teaching: The Great Obstacle to Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher Challenge

Out-of-Field Teaching: The Great Obstacle to Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher Challenge Issue Brief Education Division Contact: Bridget Curran, 202/624-5386 or bcurran@nga.org July 21, 2004 Out-of-Field Teaching: The Great Obstacle to Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher Challenge By Richard

More information

Sinking or Swimming: Findings from a Survey of State Adult Education Tuition and Financing Policies

Sinking or Swimming: Findings from a Survey of State Adult Education Tuition and Financing Policies N C S D A E National Council of State Directors of Adult Education Sinking or Swimming: Findings from a Survey of State Adult Education Tuition and Financing Policies June 2012 Marcie Foster with Lennox

More information

THE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL VOUCHERS ON COLLEGE ENROLLMENT:

THE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL VOUCHERS ON COLLEGE ENROLLMENT: August 2012 THE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL VOUCHERS ON COLLEGE ENROLLMENT: Experimental Evidence from New York City Matthew M. Chingos and Paul E. Peterson THE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL VOUCHERS ON COLLEGE ENROLLMENT:

More information

Brown at 60. Great Progress, a Long Retreat and an Uncertain Future. by Gary Orfield and Erica Frankenberg, with Jongyeon Ee and John Kuscera

Brown at 60. Great Progress, a Long Retreat and an Uncertain Future. by Gary Orfield and Erica Frankenberg, with Jongyeon Ee and John Kuscera Brown at 60 Great Progress, a Long Retreat and an Uncertain Future by Gary Orfield and Erica Frankenberg, with Jongyeon Ee and John Kuscera MAY 15, 2014 Executive Summary Six decades of separate but equal

More information

MINDTHE. The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12 Education. Jonathan A. Plucker, Ph.D. Nathan Burroughs, Ph.D. Ruiting Song.

MINDTHE. The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12 Education. Jonathan A. Plucker, Ph.D. Nathan Burroughs, Ph.D. Ruiting Song. MINDTHE (OTHER)GAP! The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12 Education Jonathan A. Plucker, Ph.D. Nathan Burroughs, Ph.D. Ruiting Song February 4, 2010 Mind the (Other) Gap! The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12

More information